G.H., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that circumstantial evidence of mere presence and flight is insufficient to sustain an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief.
G.H. was observed running near a parked van that had been scratched, but no witness saw G.H. inflict the damage. There was evidence of animosity betwe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
G.H. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Witnesses observed G.H. running around a parked van and then running from the parking lot. The van had been deeply scratched; no witness had seen G.H. inflict the damage. There was testimony that G.H. and the family who owned the van had “bad blood” between them.
“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt a conviction may not be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.” McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972, 977 n. 12 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted). G.H.’s mere presence at, and flight from, the scene of the alleged crime are insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency. E.M. v. State, 441 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); D.M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.O. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge respondent with regard to this proceeding only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.M. v. State, 622 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…on, arrest, trial or punishment. Gawronski v. State, 444 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Although highly suspicious, proof that F.M. and his codefendant were near in time and locale to an unexplained fire does not constitute arson. See G.H. v. State, 599 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). By failing to establish the underlying crime of arson, the state failed to present a prima facie case for accessory after the fact. At F.M.’s trial, no testimony or evidence was offered to prove that the fire was the result of…
-
McGHEE v. Volusia Cnty., 654 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…se to serve the employer. Because there would appear to be sufficient evidence to raise the factual issue of whether Deputy Hernlen was acting within the scope of his employment, summary judgment is inappropriate. See Woodall v. City of Miami Beach, 599 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (city not liable for any misconduct in initial encounter between bank customer and plain clothes police officer concerning their respective places in teller’s line where officer was cashing personal check, since officer was acting…
-
J.R. v. State, 671 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…he rest room. The state’s evidence was circumstantial. Regardless of how strongly the circumstantial evidence suggests guilt, a court may not sustain a conviction unless the evidence is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. G.H. v. State, 599 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (quoting McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972, [976] n. 12 (Fla.1977)). In G.H. witnesses observed G.H. running around a parked van and then fleeing from the parking lot where the van was parked. The van had been scratched deeply. Th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Meneses v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- D. M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- E.M. v. State, 441 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)